I live on Cape Cod, and recently I’ve noticed a current trend where beachgoers claim valuable (and sometimes scarce) real estate by arriving hours early to set up chairs, blankets and umbrellas before leaving to return (in some cases hours later) to permanently move into their pre-claimed territory.
I always thought you had to be on hand to occupy some part of the public space. Does an empty chair or blanket constitute actual occupancy? Do such phantom claims have any merit? Does one have the right to ignore such maneuvers by removing these chairs or blankets? If so, what should be the response to the claimant who may return to find their items unclaimed? — Daniel Burt
From the Ethicist:
The purpose of such public space is to enable as many people as possible to use it properly. That goal is undermined by absentee claims that prevent others from enjoying a spot on the beach for long periods of time. It’s good to leave evidence of occupancy if you’re just leaving to buy ice cream, for example, or visit a bathroom. If you do, however, it might be wise to leave an explanatory note. (“10:15, buy snacks, back at 10:45.”) That’s within the spirit of social convention. But your beach-blanket buccaneers are abusing this convention and effectively privatizing what should be public.
At the same time, moving other people’s things should not be done lightly. You definitely want to make sure that their owners don’t just leave for an acceptable gap. Social conventions about claiming places in these public settings are not, of course, precise. Half an hour or so with me as a good marker in most such situations, but take a poll of people you know. If the wild boars return to the beach while you are around, you can show them where their property is and tell them that you have waited a while and assumed that they will not return. (If you ever make a mistake in switching a bathroom-breaker, you must apologize and immediately give up the area.)
It is best when these issues are resolved through social, rather than legal, means. Some seaside towns in Spain, I note, will punish such offenses with stiff fines on wild boars on the beach; the Italian Coast Guard even seized unattended towels, umbrellas and chairs, holding them until their owners paid fines. Let’s hope that on your beach, social norms and sanctions will eventually be enough to discourage these parasol-planting land-grabbers.
Thoughts? If you’d like to share a response to today’s dilemma with the Ethicist and other subscribers in the next newsletter, fill out this form.
A Bonus Question
I live in a city with many clothing resale shops that benefit nonprofit organizations such as charities, schools and cultural entities, including the symphony. I buy a lot of clothes at these places because I can find quality products at reasonable prices. From time to time, I buy things whose labels indicate that they are made in developing countries. I imagine these garments come from factories and sweatshops that spew pollutants and have workers who endure horrible conditions for almost nothing. I wouldn’t buy this clothing new, because I don’t want to contribute to such a scenario. But by buying them second-hand with money that will go to good causes, am I reducing or removing myself from the harm caused by their production? Or am I just fooling myself? — Diane Pepi
From the Ethicist:
You shouldn’t avoid all clothing made in the developing world; Textile production helped lift a large number of people there out of dire poverty. (Nor should it be assumed that garment workers in rich countries are treated well.) And buying pre-owned clothing, in addition to helping worthy nonprofits, reduces the environmental impact that related to our “fast fashion” habits.
We should really try to buy goods that do not encourage bad practices. However, what will really make a difference are larger reforms — getting more companies to ensure that manufacturers in their supply chains meet decent labor and environmental standards. The more of us who commit to buying clothes only from such companies, the better. Even if each such commitment we make has little direct impact, doing so means joining a campaign that is already up and running. Within that campaign, each of us is a small cog, but those cogs are part of a great machine.
Readers responded
The previous column’s question was from a reader who for 15 years kept a trust fund from his wife that gave him $25,000 a month. She wrote: “When we first met, I said I worked as a consultant, and they never questioned it. My husband, a dedicated doctor, works long hours and doesn’t like to talk about work outside of work. . . . I actively serve on various boards, but I’ve never held a full-time job and don’t plan to. Our lifestyle is comfortably upper-middle-class, and I’m content with it. My dilemma is whether I should reveal the truth.”
In his response, the Ethicist said: “Maybe the first date is not the right time to take out your trust fund. However, by the time things get serious this year, you should definitely fessed up. As I’ve said before, secrets tend to get heavier the longer they’re kept. The truths that one might reveal on Day 5 of a relationship can be shattered by Day 500, let alone Day 5,000. So you shouldn’t wait any longer; even worse if your spouse stumbles upon the situation later. But don’t expect an easy ride.” (Read the full question and answer again here.)
⬥
Ethicist’s Advice is great. I hope the writer accepts this, although I seriously doubt the judgment of anyone who considers $25,000 a month only “upper-middle-class”. — Lena
⬥
Marriage is a contract, and finance is part of that contract. In marriage, you promise to share all of yourself, and how you live is definitely a part of that. And how you spend your days, too, is a huge part of who you are. The letter writer is living a lie, and the marriage is unstable because of it. — Betsy
⬥
The Ethicist misses The point. The only problem here is that the letter writer feels that there is a dilemma. Why would they want to shuffle the dynamics of a successful marriage? After 15 years, 10 married, the doctor obviously doesn’t care. The two live comfortably together. Offer the truth when asked. Otherwise, don’t look for rain on a sunny day. — William
⬥
Hard to imagine the amount of betrayal, loss and anger that the spouse may feel when the truth is revealed. The lie is not just about something from the past, but it is a massive deception that has been reinforced every day for 15 years. Also, the husband’s lack of interest in their partner’s day-to-day life is another red flag that makes me question what this couple really holds together. — Nina
⬥
I am in a similar situation, where my husband did not reveal his trust fund to me. After five years of marriage, I only found out by accident when his broker called. We have been separated for over 10 years. That moment was the deal-breaker. As far as I’m concerned, the trust fund is a trust breaker. — Lynne